Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Injunction Against Unauthorized Streaming of ICC World Cup Cricket Matches: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the High Court of Delhi has granted an injunction to restrain the unauthorized dissemination and broadcast of ICC World Cup cricket matches. The judgment, delivered on September 27, 2023, comes in response to a plea by Plaintiffs Star India Private Limited and Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., seeking protection against illegal streaming and communication of the prestigious sporting event.

The court observed, "Any injunction granted by a Court of law ought to be effective in nature," highlighting the urgency of protecting the rights of the content holders. It further stated, "The rights of IP holders cannot be rendered redundant in the virtual world, and the enforcement of rights on the internet has to be real and effective."

The Plaintiffs, who hold exclusive global media rights for various ICC events, expressed concerns that rogue websites could potentially undermine their rights and revenues by streaming the matches without authorization. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction and noted the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiffs.

Under the judgment, Defendant Nos. 1 to 9, primarily rogue websites, are restrained from communicating, screening, or disseminating any part of the ICC World Cup Cricket matches on any electronic or digital platform. Domain Name Registrars have been directed to lock and suspend these rogue websites, while ISPs/Telephone Service Providers are ordered to block them. The Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology are also required to issue blocking orders for illegal streaming websites.

Recognizing the dynamic nature of online infringement, the court granted Plaintiffs the liberty to promptly inform authorities of any new rogue websites that may emerge during the event for immediate blocking. Non-infringing websites may approach the court for a modification of the injunction if they provide an undertaking not to engage in the unauthorized dissemination of ICC World Cup content.

The judgment reflects the evolving landscape of intellectual property protection in the digital age, emphasizing the need for swift and effective remedies to combat online piracy of sporting events and copyrighted content. The court's decision aligns with recent developments in intellectual property law and international recommendations for combating online piracy of live events.

This landmark judgment not only safeguards the interests of content holders but also sets a precedent for addressing digital piracy in real-time, ensuring that the rights of intellectual property owners are protected and enforced effectively in the virtual realm.

Representing Advocates, Mr. Sidharth Chopra and Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, played pivotal roles in presenting the case and securing this significant legal victory for the Plaintiffs.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2023

STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED  & ANR. vs JIOLIVE.TV & ORS.

Latest Legal News